CORPORATE NEWSLETTER – JUNE 2026
CHANGES TO LEGISLATION
Bill Aimed at Ensuring the Effective and Efficient Functioning of the Judiciary Submitted to the Grand National Assembly of Turkey
The Draft Law on Amendments to Certain Laws Aimed at Ensuring the Effective and Efficient Functioning of the Judiciary, has been submitted to the Presidency of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey. The draft law envisages significant amendments to enforcement and insolvency law, civil proceedings, administrative justice, criminal proceedings and various special laws.
Under the bill, the procedures governing the enforcement of court judgements by the administration are being reorganised in the Enforcement and Insolvency Code; a requirement is introduced to make an application to the administration before initiating enforcement proceedings based on a judgement against it. Furthermore, amendments are envisaged regarding the procedures for the sale of immovable property subject to joint inheritance, as well as the provisions on auctions and security deposits within the electronic sales system.
Furthermore, the Notaries Act is amended to permit the transmission of notarial documents to the competent authorities electronically using a secure electronic signature; whilst the Law on Statutory Interest and Default Interest provides that the statutory interest rate, where not specified in a contract, shall be calculated on the basis of the rediscount rate of the Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey.
The draft bill also introduces comprehensive amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure, the Code of Administrative Procedure and the Code of Criminal Procedure in line with decisions of the Constitutional Court; including the repeal of the provision relating to claims for indeterminate amounts, the reorganisation of the institution of the deferral of the pronouncement of judgement, the updating of procedural provisions concerning the appeal and cassation systems, and the redefinition of certain criminal procedure measures relating to the processing and storage of personal data.
The draft also includes amendments to the Turkish Code of Obligations, the Council of State Act, the Judges and Prosecutors Act, the Turkish Civil Code and various special laws, aimed at enhancing the efficiency of judicial proceedings; these provisions are expected to come into force once the legislative process has been completed.
Amendments Made to the Regulation on Commercial Advertising and Unfair Commercial Practices
With these amendments, the concepts of environmental claims, social media influencers, consumer reviews and targeted advertising have been added to the Regulation; provisions relating to discount sales advertisements, environmental claims, advertising activities conducted via social media and advertising practices directed at consumers have been comprehensively revised. In this context, it has become mandatory for environmental claims to be substantiated by documents and reports obtained from authorised bodies and organisations, as well as accredited or independent assessment bodies; it is stipulated that in advertisements featuring digital characters created using artificial intelligence technologies that are indistinguishable from humans, this fact must be stated in a clear, comprehensible and distinguishable manner.
Furthermore, the procedures and principles governing commercial advertising carried out through social media influencers have been regulated in detail for the first time; it has been made mandatory for the commercial relationship with the advertiser to be clearly stated in advertising content in a manner that leaves no room for doubt among consumers. Furthermore, an obligation to provide information on the criteria used for targeted advertising activities based on consumers’ online behaviour and personal data has been introduced; targeted advertising practices based on personal data directed at children have been prohibited.
Finally, the principles governing the verification, publication and ranking of consumer reviews published online have been redefined; it has been stipulated that only reviews based on verifiable purchasing experiences will be permitted to be published. The relevant Regulation will enter into force on 1 August 2026.
Amendment to the General Circular of the Financial Crimes Investigation Board
The amendments set out in detail the procedures and principles regarding remote identity verification for non-Turkish nationals. Accordingly, remote identity verification may be carried out by obliged entities via video call using passports that comply with International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Standard No. 9303 and are equipped with Near Field Communication (NFC) functionality. In this context, verification of the information stored on the passport’s electronic chip is mandatory; furthermore, the use of artificial intelligence-based applications meeting specific criteria is permitted for the purposes of liveness detection and photograph comparison.
In addition, further obligations have been imposed on obliged entities that will accept customers via remote identity verification using a passport. In this context, regulations have been established requiring the verification of the customer’s address details via specific documents or publicly available databases; the confirmation of identity details through a bank account or bank card; the assessment of passport information alongside technical data obtained during remote identity verification using a risk-based approach; and the exclusion of citizens of countries identified as high-risk from being accepted as customers via this method. Furthermore, it has been made mandatory for customers acquired through this method to be classified as high-risk, to be subject to additional monitoring and control measures, and for obliged entities to establish policies, procedures and implementation guidelines relating to risk management processes.
Finally, certain provisions contained in the Circular have been extended to cover crypto-asset service providers; amendments have been made to various articles to ensure terminological consistency. The relevant Circular entered into force on the date of its publication.
Amendments Made to the Circular on the Implementation of Article 6 of the Annex to the Insurance Act No. 5684
With this amendment, the scope of application of the Circular has been expanded; it has been explicitly stipulated that, in addition to the procedures concerning insurance compensation claims held with the Guarantee Account by institutions and organisations operating under the Insurance Act No. 5684, disputes being pursued before the Insurance Arbitration Commission are also subject to the provisions of the Circular. Consequently, it is envisaged that the rules governing the pursuit of insurance compensation claims will apply to the arbitration process as well.
Furthermore, the persons authorised to pursue and collect insurance compensation claims have been redefined. Accordingly, a compensation claim may only be pursued by the claimant themselves, their legal representative, or a solicitor authorised by the legal representative; or, provided the claimant has personally granted power of attorney, by their spouse, children, mother, father, siblings or their solicitors. Furthermore, it has been stipulated that any form of communication with the claimant following a loss, or the provision of guidance regarding the collection of the claim, shall also be deemed to fall within the scope of collection activities. It has been explicitly stipulated that the collection of the insurance claim may only be carried out by the claimant themselves, their legal representative or their solicitor.
Furthermore, it has been explicitly ruled that insurance compensation claims may not be assigned to any person, including those authorised to pursue or collect such claims; any contract or transaction relating to the assignment of these claims is absolutely void under the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098. The aim of this provision is to prevent practices involving the assignment of insurance compensation claims and to strengthen the enforcement of the mandatory provisions of the Act.
Finally, under a new provision added to the Circular, the Insurance and Private Pension Regulation and Supervision Authority shall take action against natural and legal persons who, whilst operating under the guise of loss adjustment consultancy or similar titles, obtain, or who engage in activities purporting to facilitate the payment of compensation to entitled parties, the Insurance and Private Pension Regulation and Supervision Authority will submit a written application to the Public Prosecutor’s Offices. The relevant Circular entered into force on the date of its publication.
Amendments Made to the Insurance Information and Supervision Centre Regulation
In this context, the terminology used in the Regulations has been brought into line with the current organisational structure of the Insurance and Private Pension Regulation and Supervision Authority; the concepts of ‘designated organisation’ and ‘authorised user’ have been defined, thereby clearly specifying the scope of individuals and organisations authorised to access the Centre’s database. Furthermore, the Centre, whose administrative headquarters are in Istanbul, has been granted the authority to open branches in Istanbul or other cities in accordance with a decision by the Management Committee.
The Regulation has reorganised the data-sharing obligations of insurance companies and relevant organisations. Accordingly, the simultaneous transmission of production data relating to insurance contracts to the Centre has been made mandatory; it is stipulated that up-to-date data on outstanding claims must be transmitted by the end of the day, whilst other claims data must be transmitted in real time. An obligation has also been introduced to update the database without delay in the event of changes to claims data arising from decisions issued by the courts. In addition, it has been stipulated that a sufficient number of accident report assessment committees must be established within the Centre to enable the assessment of fault in road traffic accidents, and that the procedures and principles governing the operation of these committees must be determined by the Authority.
Furthermore, the provisions relating to the Centre’s funding and system usage have also been revised. In this context, the Centre’s sources of income have been reorganised; provision has been made for an overrun fee to be applied where member insurance companies, authorised users and designated organisations exceed the specified usage limits of the Centre’s systems. Should these limits be consistently exceeded, it is envisaged that administrative proceedings will be initiated in accordance with the relevant legislation. Whilst the majority of the amendments to the Regulation come into force on the date of publication, the provisions concerning the real-time transmission of insurance companies’ production and claims data will come into force on 1 August 2026.
COURT DECISIONS
Supreme Court Decision on the Revocation of Overtime Approval Not Constituting Just Cause for Termination
The dispute centres on a claim for severance pay and notice pay brought by the claimant following the termination of their employment contract for just cause, on the grounds that they had refused to work overtime, after they had notified the employer that they were withdrawing their consent to work overtime in accordance with the legislation in force at the workplace where they had worked for many years. The Court of First Instance held that, in accordance with the Regulation on Overtime and Extended Working Hours under the Labour Code, an employee may withdraw their consent to work overtime by giving written notice thirty days in advance, and that the exercise of this right does not, in itself, constitute a valid or justifiable ground for termination. Furthermore, the Court determined that, for a termination to be deemed justified under Article 25/II-(h) of the Labour Code No. 4857, the employee must have been explicitly reminded of the duty to be performed, a reasonable period must have been granted, and the employee must have persistently refused to perform the duty; however, as these conditions were not met in the specific case, the Court ruled in favour of the claimant.
The Regional Court of Appeal also upheld the decision of the court of first instance as lawful, on the grounds that the claimant had withdrawn their consent to overtime in accordance with the proper procedure, and that the employer had failed to prove that the claimant had been requested to work overtime within a thirty-day period and that this request had not been complied with. The Court of Cassation, in turn, upheld the Regional Court of Appeal’s decision, accepting that the withdrawal of consent to overtime work alone does not confer upon the employer the right to terminate the contract for just cause, and that the conditions for just cause termination had not been met in the specific case.
The ruling is significant in that it establishes that the employee’s right to withdraw consent to overtime is a statutory right, and that the exercise of this right alone does not result in the termination of the employment contract for just cause; rather, the conditions for just cause termination set out in the Labour Code must also be met in the specific case in question.
Supreme Court Ruling on Bonus Payments That Have Become Established Workplace Practice Constituting an Acquired Right of the Employee
The decision of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 17 February 2026, Case No. E.2025/9987, K.2026/1391, concerns whether bonus payments that have been regularly applied over many years, having acquired the status of a workplace practice, can be regarded as an acquired right of the employee.
The dispute centres on whether regular bonus payments have acquired the status of a workplace practice and whether they may be unilaterally discontinued by the employer, in a claim for payment brought by the claimant alleging that the bonuses to which they claimed to be entitled after many years of service at the workplace had been underpaid. The Court of First Instance ruled that the bonus payments made consistently to the claimant over many years had become an established workplace practice, that this practice had become part of the employee’s remuneration in the broad sense, and that the employer who took over the workplace could not unilaterally abolish the claimant’s acquired right; it therefore decided to partially uphold the claim. The Regional Court of Appeal also dismissed the appeal on its merits, on the grounds that there were no procedural or substantive violations of the law in the decision of the Court of First Instance.
The Court of Cassation, however, upheld the Regional Court of Appeal’s decision as being in accordance with procedure and the law, concluding that there was no commitment on the part of the defendant employer regarding the payment of the bonus, and that the grounds for appeal relating to the existence of a dispute, the limitation period and the commencement of interest did not constitute grounds for quashing the decision.
The decision is significant in that it confirms that premium payments, when consistently maintained over many years, acquire the status of a workplace practice and thus become an acquired right of the employee, which cannot be unilaterally abolished by the employer.
Supreme Court Ruling on the Practice of Having Annual Leave Certificates Signed and Paying Leave Pay Without the Annual Leave Being Taken
The ruling of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court dated 17 February 2026, Case No. E.2025/8491, K.2026/1420, dated 17 February 2026, concerns whether the practice of having employees sign annual leave certificates and paying leave pay without the annual paid leave actually being taken extinguishes the right to annual leave, as well as the starting point for interest applicable to the claim for annual leave pay.
The dispute centres on a claim for payment brought by the claimant on the grounds that their annual leave was not actually taken, yet retrospective annual leave certificates were signed and leave pay was paid in cash; the issues revolve around the probative value of the signed annual leave forms, the method of calculating the outstanding annual leave entitlement, and the determination of the starting date for interest. The Court of First Instance, having assessed the signed annual leave forms in the case file together with the payments of annual leave pay, ruled to partially uphold the claim on the grounds that the claimant was entitled to 42 days’ outstanding annual leave pay; the Regional Court of Appeal, largely endorsing this assessment, amended the judgment only in respect of the starting date for interest and the costs of the proceedings, and issued a new ruling.
The Court of Cassation, however, stated that, when the witness statements in the case file, the email records submitted by the claimant and other evidence were assessed together, the allegation that annual leave pay had been made without the claimant being granted annual leave was substantiated. In this context, it emphasised that it would be in accordance with the law not to deduct the annual leave payments made by the employer from the total number of days of annual leave to which the employee was entitled, but rather to set off only the amounts paid; and that the remaining annual leave entitlement should be recalculated on the basis of the total annual leave period to which the employee was entitled. Furthermore, the Court set aside the Regional Court of Appeal’s decision, stating that where the employer is placed in default by means of a formal notice, interest must be applied to the full amount of the annual leave entitlement from the date of default.
The decision is significant in that it establishes that the right to annual leave can only be fulfilled by actually granting the leave; that leave certificates signed without the leave actually being granted, and payments made in lieu of leave, do not in themselves relieve the employer of their obligation to grant annual leave; and that payments in lieu of annual leave are to be set off against the amount owed, not against the duration of the leave.
Constitutional Court Decision on the Constitutionality of the Regulation Concerning the Competition Authority’s Power to Conduct On-Site Inspections
The Constitutional Court’s decision dated 6 November 2025, numbered E.2023/174, K.2025/224, concerns the review of the constitutionality of the phrase “…where it deems necessary…” and the second sentence of the third paragraph of the same article. The decision was published in the Official Gazette No. 33171 dated 17 February 2026.
The dispute concerns whether the phrase ‘…where it deems necessary…’, which regulates the Competition Authority’s power to carry out on-site inspections of undertakings and associations of undertakings, —which governs the Competition Authority’s power to carry out on-site inspections of undertakings and associations of undertakings—and the assessment of the constitutionality of the provision stipulating that, in the event of an on-site inspection being prevented or likely to be prevented, the inspection shall be carried out by order of a magistrate. The 13th Chamber of the Council of State and the 11th Ankara Administrative Court, having concluded that the aforementioned provisions were contrary to the Constitution in cases brought seeking the annulment of administrative fines, referred the matter to the Constitutional Court via an objection.
The Constitutional Court held that the provision in question does not confer upon the Competition Authority an unlimited and arbitrary power to conduct on-site inspections; rather, this power may only be exercised for the purpose of fulfilling the duties assigned to the Authority under Law No. 4054 and within the procedural safeguards provided for in the Law. The Court also emphasised that the scope of the on-site inspection power was regulated with sufficient clarity and that this power fell within the legislature’s discretion, in accordance with the positive obligation imposed on the State under Article 167 of the Constitution to protect competition and ensure the sound functioning of markets.
Consequently, the Constitutional Court ruled that the phrase ‘…where it deems necessary…’ contained in the first paragraph of Article 15 of Law No. 4054 did not contravene Articles 2 and 167 of the Constitution and dismissed the objection. As for the application concerning the second sentence of the third paragraph of the same article, the Court ruled that it should be dismissed on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, as the provision in question does not constitute a rule to be applied in the cases under consideration. The decision is significant in terms of clarifying the scope of the Competition Authority’s power to conduct on-site inspections and the constitutional limits of this power.
NEWS FROM AROUND THE WORLD
Ruling in the US Rejecting a Request to Compel the Production of Artificial Intelligence Chat Records via a Court Order
The Nassau County Supreme Court in New York, USA, has rejected a request by one of the parties in a private law dispute to compel OpenAI LLC to produce a user’s ChatGPT records via a court order. The court stated that the requested chat logs were linked to the defendant’s legal assessments and defence strategy whilst preparing for the proceedings, and therefore should be considered under the ‘litigation privilege’.
According to the court, the requested data comprised not only limited content intended to verify the accuracy of the allegations, but also the thought process, assessments and preparatory notes used by the defendant in formulating their defence. Consequently, the request was deemed to be a broad request for information, the boundaries of which were not clearly defined and which aimed to obtain confidential information relating to the defendant’s preparatory process.
The ruling also noted that communications conducted via artificial intelligence systems do not automatically fall outside the scope of protection merely because they take place in an electronic environment. The court acknowledged that, in certain circumstances, such communications could be treated in the same way as documents created by a solicitor as part of their case preparation.
Consequently, the Court rejected the request for the ChatGPT records; it established that legal preparatory work carried out via artificial intelligence tools may not necessarily have to be disclosed to the opposing party in the case file under certain conditions. This ruling has been regarded as an important approach to how the use of artificial intelligence should be addressed in litigation in terms of balancing access to information with confidentiality.
Draft Proposal for Amendments to the Working Hours Act in Germany Released to the Public
The Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs has prepared an initial draft proposing amendments to the Working Hours Act. The draft, which was made public on 18 June 2026, is still at the internal evaluation stage within the Ministry; it has not yet been submitted for consultation with other ministries, and the legislative process has not been finalised.
Under the draft, it is proposed to allow collective agreements to base working hours on a maximum weekly working time rather than a maximum daily working time. Whilst this provision would enable employees to work in excess of the current daily working time on certain days, it also stipulates that collective agreements must include additional protective measures beyond the existing safeguards designed to protect employees’ health and safety.
The draft also makes it mandatory for employers to record, as a general rule, the start and end times of employees’ daily working hours and their total working time electronically on the day the work is carried out. Whilst it is possible for the recording to be carried out by the employee or a third party, the employer will remain responsible for ensuring this obligation is fulfilled. Furthermore, collective agreements may provide for exceptions to the electronic recording requirement or to the deadline for completing records within seven days at the latest; for small-scale employers, longer transition periods and certain concessions may be granted.
The draft in question is noteworthy in that it addresses steps towards a more flexible organisation of working hours alongside the strengthening of obligations regarding the recording of working hours. Although it is not yet certain whether the draft will be enacted in its current form, the regulation is expected to bring about significant changes in the application of German labour law, particularly with regard to flexible working models and employers’ obligations concerning the recording of working hours.
ManpowerGroup’s 2026 Global Talent Barometer Survey Published
ManpowerGroup has published its 2026 Global Talent Barometer survey, conducted with the participation of approximately 14,000 employees across 19 countries. The survey assessed employees’ well-being, job satisfaction and level of trust in their employers, as well as current trends in the labour market.
According to the survey, overall employee satisfaction in 2026 was measured at 67 per cent; it was noted that the primary reason for this decline was a weakening in employees’ sense of trust in their employers and in the future. Forty-nine per cent of participants reported experiencing high levels of stress on a daily basis, whilst approximately 66 per cent stated they had felt burnt out recently. Furthermore, 60 per cent of employees indicated they were actively seeking a new job, whilst 31 per cent believed they might lose their job in the near future.
The report states that 45 per cent of employees regularly use artificial intelligence in their work processes, a figure that has risen by 13 per cent compared to the previous year. Conversely, 43 per cent of participants expressed concern that automation could affect their jobs within the next two years; it was also found that confidence in artificial intelligence skills had fallen by 18 per cent.
The research also reveals that employees’ expectations regarding training and career development remain strong. 56 per cent of participants stated that they had not been offered any training opportunities recently, whilst 57 per cent reported not receiving mentoring support. Furthermore, the vast majority of candidates indicated that they considered it important for their CVs to be assessed by a person during the recruitment process and for direct human interaction to take place throughout the process. The research demonstrates that, despite the increasing use of artificial intelligence, employees’ expectations regarding trust, development and people-centred work processes remain as important as ever.
COMPLIANCE CORNER
Key Considerations for Employees Regarding Competition Law Compliance
Competition law compliance is not limited to the formulation of company policies; it also requires employees to act with due care in their day-to-day work practices. Competition law infringements can often arise during day-to-day business processes, such as correspondence between competitors, discussions at industry meetings, or the sharing of commercially sensitive information. It is therefore of the utmost importance that employees act with awareness regarding behaviour that could pose a risk under competition law
In this context, employees are advised to pay particular attention to the following points:
- Information regarding prices, discounts, costs, profit margins, production volumes, customer portfolios or future commercial strategies should not be shared with competitors.
- Should competition-sensitive topics arise during industry meetings, trade fairs, professional associations or similar organisations, employees should refrain from participating in such discussions and, where necessary, the situation should be documented.
- Commercially sensitive information must not be shared with competitors via WhatsApp, email or other digital communication channels.
- Any form of communication or agreement that could lead to the sharing of customers or territories, the joint determination of offers, or coordinated action with competitors must be avoided.
Should any request or situation arise that raises doubts regarding competition law, advice must be sought from the legal or compliance department before taking any action.
Breaches of competition law can result not only in substantial administrative fines for companies but also in reputational damage and legal disputes. For this reason, compliance with competition law must be regarded not merely as the responsibility of the legal or compliance departments, but as the shared responsibility of all employees engaged in commercial activities on behalf of the company.
Regular training, keeping internal policies and procedures up to date, and raising employee awareness play a significant role in mitigating risks arising from competition law.
HUMAN RESOURCES CORNER
Points to Consider When Drawing Up a Report at the Workplace
Reports serve an important function in recording incidents occurring within the employment relationship and serving as evidence when necessary. However, for a report to be legally valid and constitute a document with strong evidential value, it must not only be drawn up but also prepared in accordance with the proper procedure.
In this context, it is important that the report is drawn up on the date the incident occurred or as soon as practicable; and that the date and location of the incident, along with the specific facts, are stated clearly, precisely and in a manner that leaves no room for interpretation. Including only observed facts in the report, rather than personal assessments or assumptions, and, where possible, obtaining the signatures of witnesses to the incident, contributes to the evidential value of the document.
On the other hand, the mere fact that a report has been drawn up may not, in all cases, be deemed sufficient to prove the facts alleged by the employer. Particularly in cases where the incident forms the basis for disciplinary proceedings or termination, supporting the report with CCTV footage, electronic communications, entry and exit records, email records or other objective evidence significantly enhances its probative value in the event of a dispute.
It is therefore important for employers to view the process of drawing up a report not merely as a formal procedure, but as a process of creating legal evidence that will be taken into account in the event of a judicial review; they should take care to ensure that reports are prepared in accordance with due process, are objective, and are supported by other evidence.